The left trying to prove the Right is more evil now, and memes from the right
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (15)
sorted by:
Top Left: The shooter was not fucking "far-right." Fuck all the way off. Also, take that stupid disingenuous whore Nancy Mace with you. The worst thing about her is people keep acting like she represents people like me. She's an evil retarded grifter, and I disavow.
Top, Middle-Right: I like the image.
Bottom Left: You can't hate these people enough. Charlie Kirk was not an evil bigot.
Middle Right: I really, really, really can't stand people - on either side - pretending to be experts on things they're not experts on. I'm also not a gun expert, to be clear, but that wasn't (explicitly) a "pro" shot. Obviously a pro could have done it, but so could plenty of non-pros. And everyone talking about "bullet drop" is retarded. It's around 1.3 inches at that range. Yeah, real world scenario you've got adrenaline, you have to have some skill and self-control, but it's point and shoot. A sitting target, a prone and concealed shooter, a powerful rifle. Miss me with that shit, like I wish they'd missed Charlie Kirk.
Yeah, I never heard of a far right guy who is gay with a tranny girlfriend. No doubt, some guys on the far right are closet homosexuals but they suppress that shit. So if a gay guy is acting out his gayness with a tranny girlfriend, he's definitely left leaning.
1.3 inches? That much?
Apparently. Still nearly irrelevant for a chest shot. Hit anywhere in that area and they're probably gone.
There shouldn't be any bullet drop when aiming downward at the range he was at. If anything, it should hit higher than the crosshairs. When a rifle is zeroed, the optics are set so that the bullet "falls" into the crosshairs at a set range. With physics being what they are, it means the bullet leaves the barrel going slightly upward for the parabolic arc of the bullet to make this work. So when aiming at a downward angle, the parabolic arc offsets the drop.
Regardless, pros don't go for head/neck shots. They aim for center mass.
I was just going off range, not angle. You're going to see slight drop at 150-200 yards. But, yes, angle changes things a bit.
Correct, but that's a whole other issue, because you could say there's zero bullet drop at 2000 yards, if zeroed to that. Point is, at 150 yards, you don't even need to zero, because drop is negligible. Of course you still should zero, but the impact of bullet drop isn't much either way.
I haven't confirmed, but apparently Charlie Kirk was wearing body armor, and the shot actually did hit center mass, before sadly ricocheting up to his neck.
They always simplify it to this because they are liars and cheats. There's a really important adjective missing. It's the school library. As in the one meant for children. Where things should be curated for the protection of children.
Ask them which books are being banned. I had one teacher point out that schools have tried to ban the Bible.
I know my fellow loberts complained, and I know u/AntonioOfVenice thinks it will be recanted later, but I emphatically agree with JD Vance on smoking Narco terrorists making runs at my border.
Basically the Fox morning crew were talking about the fact that major steps need to be taken against random homeless people trying to kill innocent people, and the black host was saying they need to be in jail, and this-or-that program needs to be funded; and the white host said, "or give them lethal injection or something".
Pretty sure he was trying to say, "they'll have to be given the death penalty if they don't get stopped", but it was a "keep fucking that chicken moment" for sure.
They were off the coast of Venezuela.
It would be one thing if they were breaching our beaches. It's another when it's as soon as they enter international waters.
I think a lot of people are missing a ton of nuance on this. It was an unnecessary and arguably illegal attack. Yeah, I want our borders protected, and sometimes that will involve lethal force. That's not what happened here.
They were gonna get there eventually. The next group will probably be unwilling to head out if they got smoked off the shore.
I don't believe in "illegality" in regards to international law. As Clausewitz says, "International law is an irrelevant self-imposition". The better question was should we have done it morally, was it legal under US law, and was it necessary (like you said it isn't).
I can't say for sure that it was necessary given I don't know how effective it was at deterring future drug runs, and what kind of intel we had on it. I don't think it was a violation of US law, but I do think it leans on the side of "yes we should" because there is value in sending a message to the terrorists.
Hang on, this one in the corner needs fuckin' help.
Yes, we call them communists. Truth is, they just don't believe in Free Speech
Err, no. Fundamentalism is asserting some base premise, typically within a religion as a doctrine of faith. Evidence may not even be applicable to that assumption. Not being swayed by evidence isn't "Fundamentalism", it's just not an -ism.
Again, that's not Totalitarianism. That's just another variant of Illiberalism. Totalitarianism is when the state is given absolute jurisdiction over all things.
Okay, yes, probably. We got there eventually.
All 4 of them are just "liberalism" really.
Me not being swayed by other people's evidence isn't an -ism, I agree. It just means the evidence isn't strong enough. So many people think their evidence is so strong it's irrefutable, but obviously it isn't. Cherry-picking is another issue too: take 3-4 bits of evidence as proof but ignore these other 3-4 bits that suggest something else. Aka: Climate Alarmists!
There's a difference between not being persuaded by evidence, and rejecting contradictory evidence outright, though.
True enough! But mostly it's a case of "My evidence is golden, your evidence is poo-poo" eh? In fact many folks just glance at the source & reject it. I find that leftists love to judge books by the cover. :/